By cjc

October 23, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

Justin’s was hilarious. Hey, the kid’s only writing what we’re all thinking.

By mc

October 23, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

1st Amendment rights stepped on by a yes man for Blake Bass - Principal Pitts is a puppet, scared for his J-O-B ! Where is the ACLU in all this ?

By Clyde

October 23, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

I spent four years writing for my high school newspaper and served as editor my senior year. I wouls never have written an article demeaning my fellow students in that manner. Justin has a lot of growing up to do.

By KJ

October 23, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

cjc- You obviously don’t understand satire.

My question is can a high school student really understand satire enough to effectively present it. I have not read the article, but an amatuer could not master the fine art of satire that Swift accomplished.

By lawchick

October 23, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

I can’t believe this type of censorship is being used to discourage one of America’s basic rights, freedom of speach. What is this principal afraid of, that someone might actually see the truth in these students’ columns. When we have no tolerance for criticism or satire, what is left. Mr. Pitts should be ashamed. Is he even an educator or is he a thin-skinned bureaucrat?

By drdave

October 23, 2007 11:37 AM | Link to this

Don’t euthanize the kids. Sterilize the “stupid” parents

By Michael

October 23, 2007 11:38 AM | Link to this

If principal Pitts wants more uplifting and inspirational stories he should write them himself. This is suppose to be a student paper. Justin’s radical proposal and Caitlyn’s critical assessment of the pageant are op-ed pieces that reflect the current frustration young people face/feel in the current atmosphere personal/peer development. As a “child of the sixties” this is tame to what we wrote in our college newspapers

By KJ

October 23, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Now that I have read the article, I still question whether the student fully understands satire. Swift actually understates real solutions into his essay, but the persona of the piece dismissed the real solutions. This sense of understatement is missing in the article.

While I do not agree with the principals decission (I believe he has opened the school up to a law suit), I do agree that the article was in poor taste despite the good intentions of a satire.

By Diogenes

October 23, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this

Oh, for goodness sake, let’s protect the poor kids from being confronted with provocative thought! The horror, having them be challenged with such ideas, in a SCHOOL, no less.

Alas, it’s no wonder our schools are the laughingstock of the Western world… .

By dude

October 23, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Mr. Jones’ article, though humorous, is really lacking an enormous amout of perspective outside of the high school life. Trust me, the world beyond high school does not discriminate against those with a higher IQ. High school is the bottom of the intellectual darwinistic pyramid.

By Paul

October 23, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this

Although humourous to some people, I think it is rather elitist and prejudice to hint at euthanizing lower-IQ students. Lower-IQ students have proven to be effective in society in many different ways.

In an extremist word, where euthanization has occured because of low-income, racism, etc… I don’t think it’s appropriate for this student to do write this in an educational newspaper.

So sorry, CJC, don’t speak for all of us when you say what we’re “all” thinking. Take your clan hood off so you can see that you’re the only one with your hand up.

By Dale

October 23, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

The column was clearly more sophisticated that the audience it targeted. I like the edge and do appreciate its satirical quality. The column does present a First Amendment question, but I a not sure it is one that needs to be fought. I question the wisdom of the editor and faculty sponsor for allowing this piece to go to print. The piece is well done, for what it is, and very creative. But, a high school paper is not the proper venue. However, the response by the principal and superintendent was ham-handed and authoritarian. If this was such a big deal then it should have been handled by presenting the opposing point of view. Then maybe everyone could learn something. Instead, Coweta County missed out on an opportunity to educate.

By Jim

October 23, 2007 12:06 PM | Link to this

Actually both of the articles made a really good point. Justin told it like it is, we have a society in which there is a faction that just expects a hand out from others. Can you say New Orleans?

Caitlyn brought up another excellent point, lets rub the beauty of a chosen few in the faces of others for the sake of having a contest.

I think both of these kids are just expressing their views on two issues that have been around for a long time.

So why not let them? They have not said anything worst than anyone else recently.

By RP

October 23, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Sorry folks but Hazelwood and Morse have pretty well settled that sponsored high school newspapers are not open public forums and therefore not entitled to full first amendment protection.

What are we teaching kids when we argue they should be able to insult anyone they like with impunity — and hide behind the First Amendment yelling freedom of speech/the press the whole way? This does not teach personal responsibility or critical thinking skills. Critical thinking actually requires deliberative thought on all sides of the issue and the ability to make a truly critical choice which weighs ethical, moral (not religious mind you) and practical issues.

“Freedom of Speech” and “freedom of the press” has always been somewhat of a fallacy — there are clearly limits which is why libel and slander are legitimate causes of action and “hate speech” is a crime. Censorship is when government or authority dictates the content based upon it’s own agenda and desires and excludes all opposing viewpoints — NOT when it requires responsible choices by student leaders who apparently think its fun to use school resources to turn factions of the school against each other.

This type of editorial is NEVER simply about satire — that is the word used only when someone actually has the audacity to suggest perhaps the op-ed is a little more indicative of the writer’s true feelings than the author would like to admit.

By RonR

October 23, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this

To say that Justin’s article is satirical and should have been allowed is to assume that all the students reading it would have known it to be satirical. In today’s environment of violence in the school, to have allowed an article supporting violence against a group of students would have been irresponsible on the part of the principal. He absolutely took the correct action.

By mayretter local

October 23, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this

Ms. Caitlyn VanOrden’s article was spot on. Keep up the good work. Why does the school have an outside company come in and put on a beauty contest at the school? That doesn’t make much sense to me. That company is making money off this, even if it was marketed to the school as a “fund raising event”.

Who at the school decided this was a good idea? Who signed the contract w/ the contest company? Put the contract out for all of us to see.

By Realist

October 23, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Just one question….if Maureen Downey, Cynthia Tucker, Jay Bookman, or Jim Wooten wrote an article advocating euthanasia for the mentally handicapped, what would the reaction be? Would the AJC run the editorial? Hmmmmm……?

By TAP

October 23, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this

This is one of the few times I agree with an AJC editorial. The pea-brain, politically correct principal doesn’t have a clue as to the Bill of Rights, or even who Jonathan Swift was. His actions are one more reason for home schooling or private schools. As a former HS newspaper columnist, I purposely tread close to the “edge” many times to create thought and discussion, or sometimes just to tweak the nose of the school administration. Unfortunately, with the level of so-called education in our public schools now, I’m sure this satire has flown over the heads of the great majority of the student body and was considered a serious work. Swift also caused a furor in England when his original work appeared, if I remember correctly.

By Fit To Be Tied

October 23, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this

The pieces are informative, entertaining and thought provoking; more power to students who choose to use their brain. It’s sad they probably don’t have enough life experiences to really solve problems but adults can accomplish that.

I wonder what Justin and Caitlyn would write concerning abortion. One only wishes that that the adult solution to unwanted children was satire and not reality.

By Derek B

October 23, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this

Well done Justin. Some folks can’t handle the truth, but “Hey, Somebody’s Gotta Say It”.

By Mrs. Warren

October 23, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Anyone who thinks 5th graders should be tested and executed has some serious issues. Granted, I am tired of free-loaders and cookie-cutter yuppy kids, but no one needs to die. Sheesh.

By cjc

October 23, 2007 4:27 PM | Link to this

Gee, find humor in something, Paul, no matter the absurdity of it, and you automatically get labeled as a member of the Klan, (that’s spelled with a “K.”) Before you want me to take off this alleged hood, why don’t you take off your blinders first to see this for what it is: ridiculousness? And oh, it’s spelled “elitist and prejudiced”,” with a “D.”

By pearl

October 23, 2007 4:30 PM | Link to this

I can’t remember the last time the AJC was concerned about anything that happened in Coweta County. Why now?

By kgirl

October 23, 2007 4:43 PM | Link to this

I think some of us are missing the point. I also think Justin is absolutely correct in stating the less-educated are going to over-run the world.

As for the notion that he is advocating violence against his fellow student… A student would have to be pretty stupid to get that idea from the article, and again, that re-enforces what the article is saying.

Students don’t need to be coddled or babied. They need to be taught respect and discipline, ideally by their parents, and supported by the school. You can’t just educate with facts, students need to be taught how the world works. You don’t have a right to censor what someone says, or writes, and to go into the world thinking it isn’t ok for someone to say whatever they want to is only going to lead to anger, confusion, violence, and a lot of ridiculous lawsuits.

Finally, if high school students don’t understand what satire is, their education is seriously lacking.

By ron

October 23, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

After reading the two articles by the fine young high schoolers I have this opinion. Caitlyn’s article should be made mandatory reading for all young girls.It shows wisdom. Justin’s article should definitely been published.If Justin had survived,he would have had such a learning experience.But,what the “h”,they both get more exposure this way,and that’s what articles like this are all about.Maybe one of them can replace Wooten.

By who cares

October 23, 2007 4:53 PM | Link to this

well, if we had aborted the kids born to unwed/out of wedlock moms, we’d save a ton of money to put towards Social Security and building a 200 foot tall barbed wire shock fence to keep the illegals out and keep Grady in business. After all-are the “CHRISTIANS” that are against abortion going to take care of them? Heck no! They’re giving their hard earned money away to bums like bynum, weeks and dollar to buy million dollar homes. we would not have so many ENTITLEMENT princesses walking around down town Atlanta. Black teenage crime woudl be down because there would not be so many of them. Atlanta has a BLACK teenage problem.

By Justin

October 23, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

Another ‘modest proposal’ by Justin Jones Published on: 10/23/07

For a millennium, the world has been plagued with stupid people corrupting society and b******* the value of life for all of mankind.

The intellectually handicapped have been reproducing at a substantially greater rate than those with a fully functional brain.

The problem of the unintelligent reproducing is, and has been, a serious threat to society that has gone unchecked for far too long. It is the responsibility of man to solve this problem before a reverse Darwinism takes effect.

It is depressing to think (especially at the high school age) that people with a high IQ are generally stereotyped as “geeks” or “nerds” because they choose to do more intellectually stimulating activities like homework, and reading, instead of those activities preferred by their peers like power lifting, full contact football without head protection, or crushing cans on one’s head. So while the intelligent are exiled from the masses, the ignorant are cherished and embraced.

Due to the substantial amount of low IQ reproduction and relatively low amount of high IQ reproduction, the intelligent become fewer and farther between.

Since mankind obviously cannot control itself enough to make strides for the future, the populace spins into an out of control state of reverse Darwinism where the stupid people survive and the smart people perish.

Some form of action must be taken, one which can be governed effectively and immediately to pull a populace from a malevolent tailspin toward disaster.

First off, charity should be outlawed. No longer should people be allowed to use their children as a source of income. People who cannot afford to have kids simply should not have kids. Unemployment benefits also must be disbanded — go get a job. That isn’t to say those with disabilities should not be helped, but not with handouts, just a hand. One of the greatest minds of the century, Stephen Hawking, is immobile. Yet the courageous Mr. Hawking still manages to make strides in the areas of physics, despite being confined to his wheelchair.

Second, the government should compile a standardized test to thoroughly analyze any and all 5th grade students in the country for IQ levels. Based on the results of the test, those who perform in the bottom 25 percent should be executed. The executions will not be inhumane; simple lethal injections while one sleeps would be sufficient. With the bottom of every class systematically removed, over time the world would inevitably thrive and prosper like never before.

It is true that, without the unintelligent, there will be no one to mess up one’s order at the local fast food joint, or people on the news to give one something humorous to talk about at the water cooler at work the next morning, but that is a sacrifice, as a race, that simply must be made.

By Katie

October 23, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

Wow.

Sorry but the whole thing could have been handled better than it was.

The principal should have used it as a learning experience instead of using a heavy hand. He should have encouraged other students and anyone else offended by it to write opposing opinion pieces. You know….get some free thinking going. Encourage students to think and write.

What a waste!

Pitts is an embarassment.